Blogs

The Leveson Inquiry and the BBC

by Brian Cathcart

Is there a link between the BBC crisis and Leveson? Does the fate of George Entwistle teach us lessons about regulated journalism? Sunday papers are fumbling for the connection.

In the Observer, the headline on Peter Preston’s media column declares: ‘While Leveson’s in his bunker, the media’s in chaos’. Dominic Lawson writes in the Sunday Times under the headline: ‘Forget a press gag, it’s Twitter we must police.’

Meanwhile the Mail on Sunday editorial declares: ‘It is striking that, as Lord Justice Leveson is expected to recommend statutory regulation of newspapers, there is still no plan to create an effective external watchdog for the BBC…’

All of this artfully misses the obvious point: the BBC has taken responsibility. In the Savile affair the BBC was quick to establish two external inquiries into what had happened, and in the McAlpine affair the corporation’s boss resigned. That, in a relatively extreme form, is what accountability looks like.

Now look at the press. After the disappearance of Madeleine McCann a dozen newspapers printed between them several hundred front-page libels against the child’s parents and others. (We are certain they were libels because the papers later admitted it.) No editor resigned, and so far as we know not a single journalist was so much as reprimanded.

The worst offenders were the Star and Express papers, which admitted printing no fewer than 110 articles that were absolutely unfounded. Their editor in chief of the time, Peter Hill, was later asked whether anyone was disciplined or reprimanded and he replied: ‘I reprimanded myself, because I was responsible.‘ Did he resign? No. Did any of his friends in the editorial chairs of other national newspapers demand that he resign? No.

The wrong committed against the McCanns was at least as grave as the wrong committed against Lord McAlpine. But no one in the press took responsibility and there was no mechanism to hold them to account and ensure (as is demanded now of the BBC) that such a mistake can’t happen again. The papers that printed falsehoods just carried on as normal and, predictably, before long they were at it again, printing falsehoods en masse about the Bristol teacher Christopher Jefferies.

Now look at the Savile affair. The press is unregulated and we are constantly told that this is necessary so they can be fearless and hold bad people to account. (Though clearly this doesn’t include bad people in their own midst.) Where were they when Jimmy Savile was preying on young women? Like almost everybody else, regulated or otherwise, they were applauding his charity work. The papers might claim he was protected from exposure by the libel laws, but that protection ended with his death in October 2011. So on that date did they have years of pent-up, libel-gagged investigations ready for publication? No. Not in October 2011, and not ever. In the end it was state-regulated ITV that unleashed the scandal.

As for the BBC, there are allegations it had the story late in 2011 but failed to air it. This caused a scandal and within days two externally-led inquiries were established to look into what had happened and into the long-term background. The BBC, in other words, took responsibility. More than that, it aired the allegations against itself in a Panorma programme.

Contrast this with the behaviour of News International over phone hacking. The very latest date on which we can be sure the Murdoch management was in possession of good evidence that phone hacking had been widespread at the News of the World was early 2007. When did they establish an externally-led inquiry? Never. When did they publish a journalistic investigation of their own wrongdoings? Never. Instead, for four years they peddled the lie that only one rogue reporter had been involved, and it took the combined efforts of dozens of hacking victims, suing in the courts, to winkle out the evidence that forced a confession.

And while News International failed to take responsibility over hacking so, once again, did the editors of most of the other national papers, supposedly bitter rivals. They not only failed to investigate the scandal of hacking in their own midst, they also conspired to cover it up by mocking and marginalising the story, or simply keeping quiet.

It is true that one editor, Andy Coulson, resigned over phone hacking in 2007. What the world did not know at the time was that this was no ordinary mea culpa resignation, because Coulson received a substantial six-figure pay-off. People who resign don’t normally get pay-offs, though people who are sacked often do. Either way, Coulson didn’t so much fall on his sword as fall on a bed of cash.

When it comes to responsibility and accountability, the national press has a lot to learn from the BBC.

Brian Cathcart is director of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart.
To find out more about the events that led to Leveson, download Brian Cathcart’s Penguin Special, Everybody’s Hacked Off.

We rely on people like you to make a difference.

Give now to support the campaign for a free and accountable press.

 
Share:

1 Comment

Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.

John Ritchingsreply
November 30, 2012 at 8:14 pm

OFCOM is the link between Leveson and the BBC.

Lord Leveson has given us his thoughts. I was very impressed by the report and, as a victim of the Daily Mail group of papers and the Daily Telegraph, believe that it should be implemented as quickly as possible. Along with many others, I have two main reservations concerning the Data Protection Act 1998 – DPA and using OFCOM to monitor any self regulatory body for the press.

Any issues regarding the DPA should not be insurmountable, but using OFCOM as a monitoring organisation is inappropriate because OFCOM itself requires the Leveson treatment. OFCOM cannot review all complaints from the BBC as there is a so-called self regulatory system within the BBC which does not work unless the complainant has power. The BBC simply does not react to a complaint from Joe Bloggs. It reacted to the complaint from Lord McAlpine because he is a wealthy person, he is a public figure and has a number of power bases. If the same claims had been made about Joe Bloggs, the wrong would have been unlikely to surface. Joe Bloggs would have stayed libeled.

The same can be said in the Brand/Ross debacle. Andrew Sachs had little power of his own. It was only when the press became involved that the BBC acted. The Queen has the ultimate power over the BBC and so there was no question of telling her to get lost, which would have been the likely response to Elizabeth Bloggs. The Mail on Sunday is quite right to ask when the BBC is going to be the subject of effective regulation, which can only be delivered by independent regulation.

Even where OFCOM does review a complaint and finds in favour of the complainant, there is no requirement on the BBC to even mention that in its broadcasts. The BBC is not required to put right any error that it is found to have made.

Similarly, OFCOM cannot award any form of compensation to wronged members of the public. It is beyond the means of most to sue the BBC and that is what the BBC relies upon it the way it rides roughshod over ordinary people.

OFCOM as a regulatory organisation simply does not work and that is why I believe it requires the Leveson treatment. OFCOM needs to become an effective independent regulator in its own right. It is not a regulatory board.

The weakness in the current regulatory system surrounding the BBC allows it to hide its behaviour and maintain its undeserved and self-claimed reputation of being a world class broadcaster based upon its alleged integrity, impartiality and accuracy. In practice, the BBC does not deserve such a reputation.

The nature of its Royal Charter and the weakness of its regulatory system effectively renders the BBC to be unaccountable. In such a situation, the BBC has, like the press, behaved in an irresponsible manner. The national press has nothing to learn from the BBC, the press are the masters of irresponsible behaviour. Enter Leveson.

Just for the record, these few notes are based upon my personal experience of the BBC and OFCOM.

Leave a reply